There are many ways to measure the failure of the Carter administration. Among them, we would have to include his inability to control the name usually associated with the most important and memorable address from his single term in office. Dubbed the “Malaise Speech” by the press, Carter’s televised address — watched and heard by 65 million Americans — did not actually include the word “malaise,” though it accurately condensed the overall thrust of his message, delivered 29 years ago today, on July 15, 1979.
The economic situation in July 1979 was — not to put too fine a point to it — shit. Inflation lumbered along at 12 percent, gas prices had doubled since January, and a decade of slow economic growth had depressed public confidence in the country’s future. In the metro area of New York City, 90 percent of the gas stations had closed in early July, as fuel shortages throttled the country for the second time in five years. More than 60% of Americans believed the nation was in deep trouble. In foreign affairs, another of America’s regional deputies — Iran — had succumbed to a revolution that exposed once more the limits of American power. Carter’s poll numbers were tanking. Having already proved himself inept in dealing with a Congress controlled by his own party, Carter looked uncomfortably at the meat thermometer protruding from his administration’s glistening, browned carcass.
The overall tone of Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” speech derived from his evangelical faith and his aversion to the sin of pride, which he believed had drawn the nation into a tornado of unsustainable materialism. In the months leading up to the July speech, Carter pursued conversations with a variety of public intellectuals, including Christopher Lasch, Daniel Bell, and Robert Bellah, each of whom had published books over the previous few years decrying consumer capitalism and warning that the nation was imperiled by the demise of traditional religious values and a collapsing ethic of hard work. Carter also received conceptual guidance from the pollster Patrick Caddell, who — in a 75-page April memo to the president — described a nation brought to spoilage by its status as “the first true leisure society.” Having conquered the problem of survival, Caddell suggested, Americans had abandoned a collective sense of purpose, while the political class had drifted far from any commitment to “rough consensus democracy.” Unless political leaders – that is, Carter himself – enunciated a new message of collective responsibility, the nation’s citizens would continue to lose themselves in a haze of narcissism, consumer debt, and vapid soft rock.
The outlines of Carter’s speech took shape during a bizarre domestic summit at Camp David, where Carter received hundreds of visitors – including academics, journalists, religious figures, and ordinary citizens – who offered their wide ranging views on contemporary economic problems, the nation’s political impasse, as well as the flaws in his own presidency. During those ten days, numerous dissenting voices emerged within Carter’s own cabinet. The vice president, Walter Mondale, nearly resigned in protest against Carter’s apparent belief that Americans were primarily to blame for their own predicament; Mondale and others insisted that the country faced objective, structural problems that public officials could and should address pragmatically. Scolding his constituents for their spiritual and psychological failures, Mondale believed, was no way for Carter to address these challenges. In the end, the vice president did not resign, but neither could he persuade Carter to focus his speech on practical solutions rather than philosophical reflection.
The televised address, delivered the evening of July 15, was a unique moment in the history of the American presidency. Carter, a horrific public speaker to begin with, delivered a monotonous and halting half-hour sermon that included nearly five full minutes of criticism, encouragement and commentary from ordinary Americans with whom he had conversed during the previous week.
What followed was an unprecedented presidential jeremiad against affluence. Warning that a “crisis of confidence” threatened to “to destroy the social and the political fabric of America,” Carter observed that
[i]n a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives, which have no confidence or purpose.The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next 5 years will be worse than the past 5 years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.
Inasmuch as these observations might have been true, Carter’s speech was loaded down with a the sort of self-righteous moralizing that had often irked many Americans who might have been inclined to agree with him. Moreover, the national scolding did nothing to address — or even extend legitimacy to — the immediate and quite real economic perils facing a labor force in the throes of deindustrialization, urban Americans (many of them African American and Latino) enduring their worst decade since the depression, farming communities facing an endless upward ramp of debt. His proposals for a comprehensive national energy policy — most of which had been articulated by Carter on several previous occasions — were overshadowed by his failed attempt to reverse the “crisis of confidence,” a crisis that he defined, in any event, in extremely vague ways.
The months following of Carter’s speech underscored his own political weaknesses. In a moment of epic clumsiness, he asked his entire cabinet to resign, bungled several transitions, then hired the inept Hamilton Jordan to serve as his chief of staff; he faced the start of a devastating intra-party challenge from Edward Kennedy; and he endured one of the oddest moments in presidential history when his own press secretary revealed to an AP reporter that Carter had been attacked by a rabbit earlier that spring. The administration’s foreign policy faced a series of pressures that would set the state for much worse to come. In November, Iranian students captured the American embassy; six weeks later, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Carter’s inability to manage these crises effectively brought his administration to an end and brought undeserved discredit to energy proposals that were objectively decent and sane. The speech that was supposed to reverse the nation’s self-destructive culture — and reverse his own administration’s downward spiral — became one of many emblems of the missed opportunities that defined the Carter years.


51 comments
July 15, 2008 at 10:36 pm
ari
Nice post. I’m too tired to even think of saying more.
July 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm
davenoon
That’s because it’s, like, tomorrow where you are.
July 15, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Vance Maverick
Yes, thanks! Although I was “there” — 13 at the time of the speech — I was thoroughly tuned out of politics, and have never really grasped what the problem with Carter was supposed to have been.
In other Western news, John Burton has settled a sexual-harassment suit. His lawyer says he “had never before been accused of sexual harassment,” but either the lawyer or the reporter (it’s genuinely unclear) remarks that Burton is “well-known for his salty tongue.” No word on what made it so salty….
July 15, 2008 at 10:44 pm
bitchphd
It is a nice post. But you need to correct this bit–In the end, the vice president did not in the end. And yeah, like Vance, I was never really clear on what the “bad” thing about Carter was.
July 15, 2008 at 10:51 pm
ari
The bad thing about Carter was that, no matter how virtuous he may have been, he really, really sucked at politics. And when you’re a professional politician, that’s not good at all.
Also, I’m so tired not because it’s tomorrow here, but because I just drove from Boston to Cleveland — with a six-year-old boy and a puppy in the car with me. And yes, I used the puppy to lure the six-year-old into the car. Okay, funny people? Have I nipped that series of inappropriate jokes in the bud? I hope so.
July 15, 2008 at 11:04 pm
andrew
Still to be established: your
1. relationship to the boy.
2. relationship to the dog.
3. relationship to the car.
Also, Carter was history’s worst monster.
July 15, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Ben Alpers
Among the other bad things about Carter, b., is that Mondale was right: there were practical issues to be addressed. And Carter ultimately addressed them with a series of choices that in many ways anticipated the Reagan years, e.g. deregulation at home, massive increases in the military budget, and training and arming Islamic fundamentalist insurgents in Afghanistan.
This was a great post, d, but I think the reception of the “malaise speech” was more mixed than is generally remembered. The immediate response was an increase in Carter’s poll numbers. On July 18, 1979, Adam Clymer reported a story in the New York Times (sadly behind a paywall online) headlined “Speech Lifts Carter Rating to 37%; Public Agrees on Confidence Crisis; Responsive Chord Struck.”
Similarly, the nation rallied around Carter in the immediate wake of the taking of the hostages in Iran, which probably helped him defeat Kennedy in the Democratic primary (though Kennedy did himself no favors, famously being unable to tell Roger Mudd why he wanted to be president). Before the hostages were taken, Carter’s popularity rating stood at 32%; it soon rose to 58% (for those with JSTOR access, here’s a 1993 article from the Journal of Politics analyzing this “rally ’round the flag” effect).
Since it was framed by crisis and ended in defeat, it’s easy to see last couple years of the Carter presidency as an endless collapse. Certainly its failure was overdetermined. But it was a bumpier ride than we often remember it.
July 16, 2008 at 3:46 am
drip
Ari, you were coming from Massachusetts, on a family vacation. You could have strapped the dog to the roof of the car.
Great summary of Carter’s term. I was a young adult in 1976. I had survived Vietnam, Nixon, impossibly high gas and oil prices, inflation and unemployment. I still can’t tell you what was wrong with Carter, but things seemed to be really awful, he wasn’t offering solutions, and he began to dither. Reading his words today, he seems prescient. At the time we didn’t seem to need prescience so much as a direction. The failure to provide any leadership brought us the incredibly superficial Ronald Reagan and the fulfillment of Carter’s predictions.
July 16, 2008 at 4:00 am
drip
I should have added that Ben is right about the things that Carter implemented; he was a man of considerable substance.
July 16, 2008 at 4:12 am
Levi Stahl
Well done. Like a lot of the commenters here, I was a bit too young to really get what was so bad about Carter’s presidency, especially since his energy policy seems so forward-thinking.
It’s only been in recent years that I realized just how bad he was at his chosen profession, and this post does a great job of highlighting that. While I think the “What if Obama’s Jimmy Carter?” question has mostly faded away, I think even a quick look at this sort of detail should assuage any lingering worries: if there’s one thing I’m sure of about Obama, it’s that he’s good at politics.
July 16, 2008 at 5:02 am
neocynic
The problem I see with Carter (and I was only nine at the time of this speech, so I couldn’t even comprehend it) is that he had everything he needed to be a great president except the ability to move others.
Because his convictions, and his insistence on sticking to them in the face of opposition, are admirable enough.
I’d much rather have a president who excels at governance over politics, but in this culture the politics determine success–the ideas barely matter.
July 16, 2008 at 5:25 am
Ben Alpers
Because his convictions, and his insistence on sticking to them in the face of opposition, are admirable enough.
But is this really true of Carter when one looks beyond moral principles to actual policy?
He came in promising a sea change in U.S. foreign policy with his emphasis on human rights.* But following the Nicaraguan and Iranian revolutions and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter arguably returned to a fairly standard set of Cold War responses: increased military budgets, covert operations in which the enemy of our enemy was our friend, reinstating military draft registration, and so forth.
___________________
* It is worth noting that Carter was able to attract a wide range of support in 1976 with his promises of a “human rights policy” in part because different people saw what they wanted in it. It had a lot of appeal to more dovish Democrats. But a lot of neoconservative “Scoop Jackson Democrats” also flocked to Carter in ‘76 because they read his commitment to human rights as a rejection Kissingerian realism (which, in part, it was). By 1980, the neocons had abandoned Carter and overwhelmingly supported Reagan.
July 16, 2008 at 5:29 am
CharleyCarp
The thing that was worst about Carter is that Republicans lie and exaggerate, and no one in the press really calls them on it. Sort of like the worst thing about Al Gore as a candidate.
July 16, 2008 at 5:59 am
jhm
I wonder how we’d feel about Gov. Cater today if the Trans-Alaska pipeline had been completed a few years earlier (or how we’d feel about Gov. Reagan if it had been a few years later)?
July 16, 2008 at 7:18 am
PorJ
Somewhere in the archives there was a thread about “underated presidents” and many commentators actually named CARTER as the most underrated President! I couldn’t believe it. This great post puts that idea to rest (my choice was Chet Arthur).
For anyone who can’t remember the Carter years, I would suggest you rent/purchase/steal a great/stoopid American movie: “Americathon.” (1979)
Talk about capturing the tenor of the times; it stars John Ritter (!) as President Chet Roosevelt, who is in a lot of trouble (the year is 1998). More here:
The premise of the film is that, sometime in the then-near future (actually 1998), the USA has run out of oil, and many Americans are literally living in their (now stationary) cars and either jog or ride bicycles to travel. The federal government, housed in “The Western White House” (a sub-leased condominium in Marina del Rey, California), is near bankruptcy and in danger of being foreclosed by a cartel of Native Americans in control of Nike Inc. (which has been renamed “National Indian Knitting Enterprise”). President Chet Roosevelt (John Ritter) hires television consultant Eric McMerkin (Peter Riegert) to help produce a national raffle. Instead, they decide that the only way enough money can be raised to save America is to run a telethon, and hire TV celebrity Monty Rushmore (Harvey Korman) to host it.
Its got Elvis Costello, MeatLoaf, Jay Leno, and whole lot of other ’70s goodness…. And America is being foreclosed on by the Chinese and the Arabs (who work in combination with the Israelis, in the Hebrab Republic). OK, enough.
July 16, 2008 at 7:46 am
Cala
I will never understand the demonization of Carter. My theory: he’s obviously religious, and just as obviously not into the baby-Jesus-was-swaddled-in-the-American-flag faux religion. Therefore, he must be a Communist.
July 16, 2008 at 8:20 am
TF Smith
I was in my early teens at the time, and remember Carter’s restoration of draft registration at 18; for those of us with siblings who had been in the 18-25-year-old age cohort from 1960-1973, or fathers who had been in the same cohort in 1940-46 or 1950-53, it had an impact.
In my fairly typical high school, for example, there were 17 young men who had died in SEA, and just about everyone’s father was a veteran of WW II, Korea, or the Cold War military, so the heating up of the Cold War in the late 1970s, after the detente years of Nixon and Ford, was a constant thread in our lives.
That, coupled with the economic dislocations mentioned above, especially job losses in heavy industry, manufacturing, and the other post-war (that is, WW II) sectors that had sustained so many in middle class white, blue, and pink collar jobs, was a big issue.
President Carter and the younger Gov. Brown in California are interesting contrasts; the common thread of Reagan and Reaganism has, undoubtedly, been the grist for many dissertations.
July 16, 2008 at 8:35 am
SomeCallMeTim
Carter got caught being President at a bad time for Democrats. I wonder to what extent Carter and Clinton had the same project–moderating the Democrats–and Carter just came too early.
July 16, 2008 at 8:49 am
JPool
I was about half Vance’s age at the time of the speech and so understood even less. As a result, I’m especially grateful for this history lesson. I never appreciated how much he laid the groundwork for Reagan’s religious revivalism.
God that was an awful speech.
“Several of our discussions were on energy, and I have a notebook full of comments and advice. I’ll read just a few.”
He forgot to add “Stop me if start to ramble.”
“So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country.”
Uh huh, so if we confidently came together as a country and did… something… conserving… something about energy… I’m sorry, what was the question again?
July 16, 2008 at 9:34 am
Russell Belding
Although I liked Carter at first, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 because of an unseemingly instinct for self-preservation, being furious at Carter for requiring me, a 20-year-old, to register for Selective Service in case he decided in his infinite wisdom to send me somewhere to die to secure our “interests.”
July 16, 2008 at 9:34 am
Russell Belding
Make that “unseemly”
July 16, 2008 at 9:37 am
PorJ
Carter got caught being President at a bad time for Democrats.
Yeah, that whole Watergate thing, Nixon-pardon thing, Democratic control of Congress and 1974-mid-term election sweep really made things tough around 1976 for the American Democratic Party. Its a wonder Carter was able to squeak out that victory….
Anyway you slice it: Carter blew a great opportunity for the Democrats. His later work shouldn’t obscure this. Up thread here somebody mentioned his defense spending. Don’t forget it was Carter who started the deregulation mania of the 1980s, and without, for instance, the Carter Administration’s FAA, you don’t have the ATC strike that Reagan broke for political gain so successfully. He was a rotten president, and, I would posit, a huge amount of the Reagan myth is based on *that* reality over anything Reagan actually did between 1981 and 1984 (”Are you better off than you were four years ago”?).
July 16, 2008 at 9:58 am
joel hanes
I will never understand the demonization of Carter.
President Carter told Americans :
– there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch
– all your choices have costs
– America and Americans sometimes make bad choices that cause problems, suffering, even evil
– adults are responsible for the consequences of their choices
– perpetual growth is unrealistic and destructive
– there are limits, and we’re close to some of them
– greed and ostentation are immoral
– learning and understanding are necessary
Americans hated that message. Hated it.
So when genial, twinkly-eyed Ronald Reagan came along to tell them the following comforting lies :
– reducing taxes on the wealthy will produce free lunch for all
– we are number one
– America is an avatar of the Good, the Shining City on a Hill, morally perfect
– those others are an Evil Empire, and are to blame for most evils
– those other others are bad people, and we should all despise them
– so when bad happens, we’re never to blame
– don’t worry, be happy
– greed and comsumption are positive goods. More of everything! Glizt! Glamour!
– there’s nothing wrong with telling or believing lies, as long as they make you feel good about yourself and the nation.
the nation’s electorate instantly fell in love with Reagan the enabler, and tried to pretend that Carter had never said those horrible things.
-
July 16, 2008 at 10:38 am
SomeCallMeTim
eah, that whole Watergate thing, Nixon-pardon thing, Democratic control of Congress and 1974-mid-term election sweep really made things tough around 1976 for the American Democratic Party.
I think that ended up being treated as a blip. As I recall, Carter narrowly defeated Ford, so it seems to me that most of the taint on the Republicans associated with Nixon had disappeared by 1976.
Carter also had to deal with stagflation, Volker’s attempts to beat inflation (my recollection is that GHWB blames Greenspan for his defeat), the hostage crisis, the invasion of Afghanistan, crime statistics, and a party that he wanted to pull to the right that did not want to be pulled.
Don’t forget it was Carter who started the deregulation mania of the 1980s,
We may be starting from different places. I think that counts as a feather in Carter’s cap. The extent to which air travel and long distance calling have become standard goods is astonishing, in a positive sense, to me. (When I think back to my childhood, I’m amazed that I can talk for hours with someone who lives outside of my locality, let alone my state. And flying on something close to whim? Wow.)
July 16, 2008 at 10:40 am
Christian Democrat
I still respect Jimmy Carter for being the guy he was and remaining that person while president. His “Malaise” speech was right on the money and proven all the more so with the passage of time.
We are now a nation of consumers that makes very little. We face many of the same situations that were in place when the speech was given, and have done little to nothing towards resolving those problems.
As a nation we’re fat, driving SUVs, eating Cheetos while watching a sitcom that numbs our minds to the very real dangers ahead. WE mortgage our homes to live lives we think we’re entitled to because that’s what we see while our fingers go orange.
The news media, in their divisive manner, numbs us against involvement by telling us what we want to hear or being more entertainment than news. The media is in the business of selling ads so people buy things and their content is driven by that goal.
It will be interesting to see what happens if oil hits $200/barrel. Will you still think Carter so wrong?
July 16, 2008 at 10:47 am
Vance Maverick
CD, the question is not whether his substantive claims were right, but with whether making them in the way he did was helpful. Did that speech actually move the country in the direction he hoped (and you, and Joel, and me)?
July 16, 2008 at 10:48 am
Ben Alpers
The politics of the mid-1970s are really interesting and complicated.
Without the scandals of the Nixon administration, Gerald Ford would likely have gotten nowhere near the presidency.
And Jimmy Carter’s presidency was the strange outcome of his figuring out the still very new rules of the presidential primary game (Carter is why we all pay attention to the Iowa caucuses…though Obama proved they can still make a huge difference) and of a variety of factors working against Ford’s reelection (including Watergate itself, the Nixon pardon, and Reagan’s quite bitter primary campaign against him).
The Carter nomination and presidency also interrupted the previously open battle between the Democratic Party’s hawkish and dovish wings. The hawks had won (barely) in ‘68, the doves won in ‘72 but got hammered in November. Carter came out of nowhere to win the nomination and could seemingly offer something to both hawks and doves (see my above comment about his human rights policy). By the end of his presidency, Carter had very much emerged as a hawk.
In a way that late ’60s/early ’70s divide in the Democratic Party has never been resolved entirely, but the hawks have pretty much been in charge ever since.
July 16, 2008 at 11:40 am
Charlieford
Great post. Carter wasn’t the smoothest navigator of the political winds roiling the nation, but, to be fair, I think the 1970s was an unusually difficult time for any president. (The first of the ’70s presidents resigned and the other two were single-termers). There’s a reason presidents often prefer foreign to domestic affairs: the former can often be simplified down to a manageable much palatable to your average American moron and with a little luck you can blow something up and declare a victory. Domestic issues are often intractable and any solution makes as many enemies as it wins friends. Carter had the bad luck to be in charge of an economy skidding all over (remember Nixon had to freeze wages and prices to control inflation), a Middle East in flamed by the Yom Kippur war, sclerotic Soviets running wild, and the Iranian Revolution with hostages. Republicans have been associating all the problems of the ’70s with Carter ever since, and claiming that the mere installation of Reagan magically healed the land. Gak.
July 16, 2008 at 11:41 am
Charlieford
That’s “mush,” not “much.” But not much mush at that. Not as much as you deserve, you say? Oh, hush.
July 16, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Jeremy Young
Jeffrey Feldman offers a different take on the Carter speech in his book. He thinks it’s a rhetorical masterpiece.
I’m inclined to agree with him. But maybe that’s because I’m a self-righteous moralizer myself.
July 16, 2008 at 1:10 pm
silbey
Will you still think Carter so wrong?
Uh, yes? Next question…
July 16, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Scoldings at Jacob Christensen
[...] Edge of the American West considers Jimmy Carter’s ill-fated Malaise Speech, delivered 29 years ago yesterday:1 Inasmuch as these observations might have been true, Carter’s [...]
July 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Walt
I’m heading down to the vending machine to get some Cheetos. Anyone else want some?
July 16, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Jimmy Carter was right. « More or Less Bunk
[...] There’s much more about this speech at the post by Dave Noon that inspired this one at the Edge of the American West. [...]
July 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Charlieford
Get me a Slim-Jim.
July 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm
andrew
Had FDR been a poor president, or even lost in 1932, would his Commonwealth Club speech have a reputation similar to that of this Carter speech?
July 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Ben Alpers
Excellent question, andrew.
Let me reiterate something I said above: initial polling indicated that the “crisis of confidence” speech hit a nerve and increased Carter’s popularity.
Is there actually any reason to think that it didn’t do this? Is it possible that other factors brought Carter down (and to be fair, he was pretty far down already by the time he gave this speech) and, retrospectively, people somehow (in part) blame a speech that actually, on the margin, helped Carter?
July 16, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Walt
I think your take on the speech is right, Ben. It’s a convenient case of synecdoche. If Carter had followed up the speech with robust leadership, it wouldn’t signify in the same way.
July 16, 2008 at 4:01 pm
grackle
Thank you for this fine post. I have always wondered why Carter has been seen as a poor president and this post ,as well as some of the comments to it offer some reasons for that apparently widespread opinion. I don’t have the excuse of having been very young for my ignorance, since I was in my thirties in the later 1970’s. My own opinion of him at the time was mixed. First, I am always happy when a president can’t seem to lead – it somehow seems like a mark of a more healthy society, and I am very skeptical about the need for most so-called leadership. On the other hand, I recall viewing him at the time as quite conservative in ways that furthered my suspicions about him. I, too, voted for John Anderson in 1980.
In contrast, it’s remarkable that no one has mentioned the two things that I think of as signal accomplishments of Carter’s time in office: the Camp David Accords for one, and secondly, the fact that we did not have any wars in the Middle East, specifically that Carter did not rise to the bait, despite the provocations furnished by the Iranian embassy take-over. I’ve always felt that Carter was faulted for not starting something on the order of the current Iraq war. That I think is the opinion of the neo-cons, much to their discredit.
So thanks for the (almost daily) edification. Perhaps one of you could explain next why Ronald Reagan has not been dismissed as a demented buffoon, and is, in some quarters, seen as a great something or other, even by persons whom I respect, although I have gotten the feeling from them that if-you-have-to-ask- you have failed the sole test of worthiness-to-understand that can be devised.
July 16, 2008 at 4:19 pm
TF Smith
Demented buffoon? I don’t think Reagan can be dismissed that easily. He certainly filled a niche between Nixon and Goldwater.
He was a typical of his generation of midwesterners-turned-Californians, who changed from being a New Deal Democrat and union man to an archetype of the postwar consumerist society and the Western GOP…he was, of course, a well-prepared pitchman and was, as Lou Cannon said, playing the role of a lifetime.
July 16, 2008 at 4:56 pm
neocynic
Demented buffoon? I don’t think Reagan can be dismissed that easily.
I can. Damn. He started this “You’e in debt? Spend it away!” government mindset.
I’m a raging atheist, but I hope there’s a special hell for vapid idiots who lead millions to ruin. A special torture for the Pied Pipers of America Town.
Sorry. I’m supposed to be funny.
Pull my finger.
July 16, 2008 at 4:57 pm
neocynic
And by “You’e in debt?” I clearly meant “Youse guys owe money?”
Guh.
July 16, 2008 at 5:00 pm
neocynic
Wow. The statement was “I don’t think Reagan can be dismissed that easily” and my response is “I can?”
Damn. I need to lay off the paint thinner.
The better exchange ould have gone:
“I don’t . . . ”
Then me, a competent human: “I do.”
Yikes. Are we married?
July 16, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Real Estate Crisis and A little American Studies » Blog Archive » Woe is Us « The Edge of the American West
[...] Woe is Us « The Edge of the American West [...]
July 16, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Jay C
I think another reason why the presidency of Jimmy Carter has tended to get a bad rep in latter years is that his replacement – Ronald Reagan – was quite consciously “sold” to the American electorate as the Great Political Hope (which pitch succeeded, IMO, for the reasons joel hanes outlined above) . And, as part of the carefully-manufactured mythos the Republicans built up around Reagan (and still, pathetically, cling to to this day) – the demonization of his predecessor as an ineffectual ditherer (a sort of Democratic Herbert Hoover) was a vital component. Thus, since Republicans and conservatives gleefully canonized Reagan as the Great Bold Leader, Jimmy Carter had to be ritually denigrated as the Worst President Evah, in order to make their chosen Hero look even more Heroic and tall-standing: regardless of the realities.
It’s hard to class Carter as “the worst” – he did get a ton of bad breaks – but I think that over all, his performance in office WILL be classed by future historians as “underrated” – just as Reagan’s will be “overrated” . It’s just the degree of said rating that’s still unclear.
July 16, 2008 at 6:26 pm
SomeCallMeTim
I seem to have had a completely different Seventies experience than everyone else I run into on blogs. To me, as a kid, the Seventies were an anxious decade, and Reagan was reassuring. I think that’s also the bedrock on which conservative worship of him sits. And Carter, unable or unwilling to be reassuring, was a pretty good foil for him. So the greater Reagan, the worse Carter.
July 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Brad
Maybe it is an age thing, but the Carter years and the Reagan years all run together in my mind as a time of economic insecurity and potential nuclear holocaust.
I never understood the big deal about Reagan, but maybe when you are 13, all politics is really local, and we sure were not better off than we were four years earlier.
July 16, 2008 at 8:38 pm
SomeCallMeTim
the Carter years and the Reagan years all run together in my mind as a time of economic insecurity and potential nuclear holocaust.
I think that there’s something to that–by recollection, 1982 is the year that the economy really tanked–but (a) for some reason, Reagan was reassuring, at least to me, and (b) I think we tend to associate a President with the state of the country at the end of his term.
July 17, 2008 at 8:10 am
TF Smith
Neocynic – I appreciate the honesty and intensity of the response; I’m certainly no fan of RWR, for what he did as governor and as president. That being said, he had an appeal that I – as someone who was a teenager at the time – never saw, but yet undeniably was very real to a lot of people.
His posthumous hagiography by the GOP is an interesting story of a different sort.
Not that personal anecdote means a lot, but during the 1980s-90s I was in uniform, and after the Beirut and Grenada incidents, my recollection is that the average enlisted was fairly confident that Reagan was not going to get us bogged down in a land war in Asia (much less push the button); he had had his opportunities as CinC and hadn’t liked the outcomes.
SDI was blue sky and black budget stuff to me and mine. It had no impact on what we were worried about, one way or the other, other than budget pressures.
July 17, 2008 at 11:42 am
kid bitzer
what this analysis lacks, excellent as it is, is the perspective of historians of the presidency itself. (one of which i ain’t.)
what i have in mind is this: carter was also in office at a time when the house and senate were very powerful. tip o’neill, anyone?
if you had read coverage of his presidency at the time, part of what you would have seen was generalized hand-wringing, not only over carter himself, but over the office of the presidency itself. had the office just run out of gas? could it any longer provide leadership for america?
part of the selling of reagan was a d.c. desire to have an imperial presidency again. reagan promised to do that, and did.
but he still had to fight tip and co.
so what i’d like to request, for a future post, is some sense of the historical trajectory of presidential power in the last decades, and whether it can be disentangled from the performance of various incumbents.
certainly the wretchedness of the current administration could have been ameliorated by the existence of other functioning branches of govt.
and finally–carter was the last president who did not routinely and shamelessly lie to the american people. i think he deserves props for that.
July 18, 2008 at 7:43 am
realist
re the iranian hostages,a question avoided like the plague
did rwr’s crowd make a preelection deal with the iranians
to release the hostages?
what transpired with the irangate/contra deal hint that
this was so.
the great manipulator